Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Social Impact Assessment: International Principles
Social Impact Assessment: International Principles
SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT INCLUDES THE PROCESSES OF ANALYSING, MONITORING AND MANAGING THE
INTENDED AND UNINTENDED SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES, BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, OF PLANNED INTERVENTIONS
(POLICIES, PROGRAMS, PLANS, PROJECTS) AND ANY SOCIAL CHANGE PROCESSES INVOKED BY THOSE INTERVENTIONS.
ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO BRING ABOUT A MORE SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE BIOPHYSICAL AND HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT.
1. The goal of impact assessment is to bring about a more ecologically, socio-culturally and economically sustainable and equitable
environment. Impact assessment, therefore, promotes community development and empowerment, builds capacity, and develops
social capital (social networks and trust).
2. The focus of concern of SIA is a proactive stance to development and better development outcomes, not just the identification or
amelioration of negative or unintended outcomes. Assisting communities and other stakeholders to identify development goals,
and ensuring that positive outcomes are maximised, can be more important than minimising harm from negative impacts.
3. The methodology of SIA can be applied to a wide range of planned interventions, and can be undertaken on behalf of a wide
range of actors, and not just within a regulatory framework.
4. SIA contributes to the process of adaptive management of policies, programs, plans and projects, and therefore needs to inform the
design and operation of the planned intervention.
5. SIA builds on local knowledge and utilises participatory processes to analyse the concerns of interested and affected parties. It
involves stakeholders in the assessment of social impacts, the analysis of alternatives, and monitoring of the planned intervention.
6. The good practice of SIA accepts that social, economic and biophysical impacts are inherently and inextricably interconnected.
Change in any of these domains will lead to changes in the other domains. SIA must, therefore, develop an understanding of the
impact pathways that are created when change in one domain triggers impacts across other domains, as well as the iterative or
flow-on consequences within each domain. In other words, there must be consideration of the second and higher order impacts
and of cumulative impacts.
7. In order for the discipline of SIA to learn and grow, there must be analysis of the impacts that occurred as a result of past activities.
SIA must be reflexive and evaluative of its theoretical bases and of its practice.
8. While SIA is typically applied to planned interventions, the techniques of SIA can also be used to consider the social impacts that
derive from other types of events, such as disasters, demographic change and epidemics.
SIA is best understood as an umbrella or overarching framework that embodies the evaluation of all impacts on humans and on all the ways in
which people and communities interact with their socio-cultural, economic and biophysical surroundings. SIA thus has strong links with a wide
range of specialist sub-fields involved in the assessment of areas such as: aesthetic impacts (landscape analysis), archaeological and cultural
heritage impacts (both tangible and non-tangible), community impacts, cultural impacts, demographic impacts, development impacts, economic
and fiscal impacts, gender impacts, health and mental health impacts, impacts on indigenous rights, infrastructural impacts, institutional
impacts, leisure and tourism impacts, political impacts (human rights, governance, democratisation etc.), poverty, psychological impacts,
resource issues (access and ownership of resources), impacts on social and human capital, and other impacts on societies. As such, comprehensive
SIA cannot formally be undertaken by a single person, but requires a team approach.
An important feature of SIA is the professional value system held by its practitioners. In addition to a commitment to sustainability and to
scientific integrity, such a value system includes an ethic that advocates openness and accountability, fairness and equity, and defends human
rights. The role of SIA goes far beyond the ex-ante (in advance) prediction of adverse impacts and the determination of who wins and who loses.
SIA also encompasses: empowerment of local people; enhancement of the position of women, minority groups and other disadvantaged or
marginalised members of society; development of capacity building; alleviation of all forms of dependency; increase in equity; and a focus on
poverty reduction. SIA complements the economic and technical models that characterise the thinking of many development professionals and
agencies.
SIA can be undertaken in different contexts and for different purposes. This creates difficulties in defining or evaluating it. The nature of an SIA
done on behalf of a multinational corporation as part of that company’s internal procedures may be very different to an SIA undertaken by a
consultant in compliance with regulatory or funding agency requirements, or an SIA undertaken by a development agency interested in
ensuring best value for their country’s development assistance. These, in turn, may be very different to an SIA undertaken by staff or students
at a local university on behalf of the local community, or an SIA undertaken by the local community itself. Each of these applications of SIA is
worthwhile, and none should pretend to be the definitive statement. Evaluation of an SIA needs to consider its intended purpose.
Some conceptualizations of SIA are related to protecting individual property rights, with clear statements of adverse impacts required to ensure
that individual rights are not transgressed. Where these rights are violated, SIA could be seen as contributing to mitigation and compensation
mechanisms. In these situations, SIA tends to concentrate on the negative impacts. In other contexts, however, particularly in developing
countries, there should be less emphasis on the negative impacts on small groups of individuals or on individual property rights. Rather, there
should be greater concern with maximising social utility and development potential, while ensuring that such development is generally
acceptable to the community, equitable and sustainable. SIA should also focus on reconstruction of livelihoods. The improvement of social
wellbeing of the wider community should be explicitly recognized as an objective of planned interventions, and as such should be an indicator
considered by any form of assessment. However, awareness of the differential distribution of impacts among different groups in society, and
particularly the impact burden experienced by vulnerable groups in the community should always be of prime concern.
.
.
.
.
. SIA COMPLEMENTS THE ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL
A convenient way of conceptualising social impacts is as changes to one or more of the following:
• people’s way of life – that is, how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis;
• their culture – that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect;
• their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities;
• their political systems – the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of
democratisation that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose;
• their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard
or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over
resources;
• their health and wellbeing – health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing and not merely the
absence of disease or infirmity;
• their personal and property rights – particularly whether people are economically affected, or experience personal disadvantage
which may include a violation of their civil liberties;
• their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their
aspirations for their future and the future of their children.
II. Principles: General statements of either a common understanding or an indication as to a course of action about what ought to be done (ought
statements).
III. Guidelines: Statements by which to plan a specific course of action and which clarify how it should done (action statements).
Guidelines can be described as statements which provide advice or direction by which to plan a specific course of action. They are written as
specific statements of instruction about what to do and/or how to do it. Typically they are “action-statements”. A principle is a macro statement
that provides a general guide to a course of action about what ought to be done. They are written as “ought-statements”. Core values are
statements about fundamental beliefs that are deeply held. They are typically “is-statements”. Values determine principles, from which
guidelines can be written.
1. There are fundamental human rights that are shared equally across cultures, and by males and females alike.
2. There is a right to have those fundamental human rights protected by the rule of law, with justice applied equally and fairly to all,
and available to all.
3. People have a right to live and work in an environment which is conducive to good health and to a good quality of life and which
enables the development of human and social potential.
4. Social dimensions of the environment – specifically but not exclusively peace, the quality of social relationships, freedom from fear,
and belongingness – are important aspects of people’s health and quality of life.
5. People have a right to be involved in the decision making about the planned interventions that will affect their lives.
6. Local knowledge and experience are valuable and can be used to enhance planned interventions.
“The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate
in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can
be fully realized. The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes,
subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty
over all their natural wealth and resources.”
In International Agreements and Declarations social issues are often implied but rarely given adequate emphasis. Nevertheless, the statements
that are given in those Declarations can be rewritten to refer to social issues more specifically. The following is a list of international principles in
common usage rewritten to apply more directly to social issues.
Precautionary Principle: In order to protect the environment, a concept which includes peoples’ ways of life and the integrity of their
communities, the precautionary approach shall be applied. Where there are threats or potential threats of serious social impact, lack of
full certainty about those threats should not be used as a reason for approving the planned intervention or not requiring the
implementation of mitigation measures and stringent monitoring.
Uncertainty Principle: It must be recognised that our knowledge of the social world and of social processes is incomplete and that
social knowledge can never be fully complete because the social environment and the processes affecting it are changing constantly,
and vary from place to place and over time.
Intragenerational Equity: The benefits from the range of planned interventions should address the needs of all, and the social impacts
should not fall disproportionately on certain groups of the population, in particular children and women, the disabled and the socially
excluded, certain generations or certain regions.
Recognition and Preservation of Diversity: Communities and societies are not homogenous. They are demographically structured
(age and gender), and they comprise different groups with various value systems and different skills. Special attention is needed to
appreciate the existence of the social diversity that exists within communities and to understand what the unique requirements of
special groups may be. Care must be taken to ensure that planned interventions do not lead to a loss of social diversity in a community
or a diminishing of social cohesion.
Internalization of Costs. The full social and ecological costs of a planned intervention should be internalised through the use of
economic and other instruments, that is, these costs should be considered as part of the costs of the intervention, and no intervention
should be approved or regarded as cost-effective if it achieves this by the creation of hidden costs to current or future generations or
the environment.
The Polluter Pays Principle. The full costs of avoiding or compensating for social impacts should be borne by the proponent of the
planned intervention.
The Prevention Principle. It is generally preferable and cheaper in the long run to prevent negative social impacts and ecological
damage from happening than having to restore or rectify damage after the event.
The Protection and Promotion of Health and Safety. Health and safety are paramount. All planned interventions should be assessed
for their health impacts and their accident risks, especially in terms of assessing and managing the risks from hazardous substances,
technologies or processes, so that their harmful effects are minimized, including not bringing them into use or phasing them out as
soon as possible. Health impacts cover the physical, mental and social wellbeing and safety of all people, paying particular attention
to those groups of the population who are more vulnerable and more likely to be harmed, such as the economically deprived,
indigenous groups, children and women, the elderly, the disabled, as well as to the population most exposed to risks arising from the
planned intervention.
The Principle of Multisectoral Integration. Social development requirements and the need to consider social issues should be
properly integrated into all projects, policies, infrastructure programs and other planning activities.
The Principle of Subsidiarity. Decision making power should be decentralised, with accountable decisions being made as close to an
individual citizen as possible. In the context of SIA, this means decisions about the approval of planned interventions, or conditions
under which they might operate, should be taken as close to the affected people as possible, with local people having an input into
the approval and management processes.
There are many different groups who are potentially interested in guidelines for SIA. They include:
In addition, various sectors of the community may have special interests, and it may be appropriate for guidelines to be developed to address
those special interests, such as Indigenous Peoples.
IAIA seeks to liaise with the groups listed above to develop SIA Guidelines applicable to their practice.
IAIA VISION
IAIA is the leading global authority on the best practice in the use of impact assessment for informed decision
making regarding policies, programmes, plans, and projects.
IAIA MISSION
IAIA provides an international forum for advancing innovation and communication of best practice in all
forms of impact assessment to further the development of local, regional and global capacity in impact
assessment.
IAIA VALUES
• IAIA promotes the application of integrated and participatory approaches to impact assessment,
conducted to the highest professional standards.
• IAIA believes the assessment of the environmental, social, economic, cultural and health implications
for proposals to be a critical contribution to sound decision-making processes, and to equitable and
sustainable development.